Climate change deniers have grasped that markets can’t fix the climate
The Guardian, where else? Has anyone ever suggested that markets can fix the climate? Does it need fixing (given that it has been changing since the Earth solidified from molten rock)?
And the usual canard that anyone who thinks that we need to spend millions of pounds in taxes to “fix” the climate is wrong is labelled a “denier” in an attempt to liken them to those who deny that the holocaust happened. I immediately stop listening to people when they do that, for they have no rational argument to offer. And Milne’s predictable wibble is more of the usual tripe.
It’s an unmistakable taste of things to come. The floods that have deluged Britain may be small beer on a global scale.
Yes and has been pointed out to you by the very climatologists you so revere, these floods are a consequence of the jet stream moving further south than usual – not to do with climate change at all. Floods have happened before and will again. Of course, if the vested green interests had not stopped the dredging, they wouldn’t have been so bad, but that goes against the meme, doesn’t it?
I’ll leave debunking the Guardian’s bollocks about the floods to James Delingpole who does such a magnificent job.
These people are scum, they really are.
I have been trying to find out for a week or two now, with no results.
Does any one here know just HOW they came up with specifically CO² , as the culprit in all this fabrication of lies?
It strikes me that humanity has a default position of “hate.”
They must hate SOMEONE, or SOMETHING.
Since 1945, or even the end of the cold war, this “hate” figure has been missing.
Add to this, that it is now imprisonable to hate virtually ANYTHING, the dicatorship has had to develop a “guy Fawkes”* that every one can work out their tensions on, before they turn on the dictatorship.
Motor-cycles, CO², tobacco, meat, alcohol, sugar, etc.
*(I presume this is the “straw man” crap that every cunt keeps on about, but means nothing?
Like “Jumping the cod… or some other kind of fish…” (???) Total shite for idiots that have lesser ability in English than a slow worm.)
Because CO2 levels have been rising, and can be blamed on man’s activities. The fact that water vapour has a far greater warming effect, is convieniently ignored. Can you imagine constant demands to “regulate” that? CO2 (or “Carbon” as it’s often wrongly described) is a wonderful scapegoat which can be used to push the “we are all doomed” theme, Agenda 21, etc….
The strawman is that no one has ever said that markets can fix the climate – yet this is the case that Seamus Milne is arguing against. It’s an absolute classic strawman argument. Textbook.
Try this sensible climatologist. They are a rare breed it’s true but this fellow is fantastic.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
“I presume this is the “straw man” crap that every cunt keeps on about, but means nothing?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
This is going to be one of the few times I disagree with you: there is no strawman as there are people, including myself, who claim that markets are the best way to deal with pollution (free market environmentalists).
Of course, Seamus’s piece is still utterly worthless as he doesn’t actually make any arguments, and finishes the piece with a lie.
“The intervention, regulation, taxation, social ownership, redistribution and global co-operation needed to slash carbon emissions and build a sustainable economy for the future is clearly incompatible with a broken economic model based on untrammelled self-interest and the corporate free-for-all that created the crisis in the first place. Given the scale of the threat, the choice for the rest of us could not be more obvious.”
The market was dealing fine with pollution until the mid-1800s when governments decided that industrialisation was more important, so the little people could go fuck themselves…
“As a rule, capitalism is blamed for the undesired effects of a policy directed at its elimination.” Mises 1940.
And if governments can solve problems, Seamus you dishonest little skunk-fiddler, why don’t they?
The likes of the USSR had all your totalitarian, wet dream bollocks – they also had rivers that were so polluted they could catch fire…
And this wasn’t in spite of your communist fantasies, but because of them. You attack markets and private property, then abuse and just a straightforward lack of giving a shit is the only result possible.
This type of deliberate bullshit is really starting to piss me off.
Fuck the collectivists and their pathetic little arguments: socialism and communism are different, we’ve never had real communism, blah,blah, blah.
Fuck the watermelon scum, eager to use anything they possibly can to gain power.
Fuck the left in general, even the non-insane ones (if there are any) as they help provide a legitimate front and shield for the horrors they advocate.
EDIT – hmm… might have been a little angry writing this one.
But pollution isn’t climate – and the gist of the article is based upon markets failing to “fix” the climate. No one has said they can.
Yes, pollution isn’t climate, but they mean to fix the climate by controlling pollution.
Yeah, sure, they might be saying that – sceptics aren’t. At least, not so far as I am aware. Hence the strawman. Sceptics might well be saying that the markets can fix pollution and I wouldn’t gainsay that, but they aren’t saying that this will fix the climate – or are they? If so, I’d love to know how that’s going to work.